Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-6 Astra Pro vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs 89.3x less per output token than GPT-6 Astra Pro ($0.56 vs $50.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-6 Astra ProOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$50.00
1
Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
0
vs boards won of 1 shared

GPT-6 Astra Pro or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-6 Astra Pro for a larger context window (1.05M against 131K tokens).

Shared results
1
GPT-6 Astra Pro only
1
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
46
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-6 Astra Pro not benchmarked, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 84.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
WeirdML: GPT-6 Astra Pro 93.6% against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 9.0%, 84.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-6 Astra Pro $50.00 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 per million output tokens, 89.3x apart.
Context window
GPT-6 Astra Pro takes 1.05M tokens, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-6 Astra ProBarsLlama 3.1 70B InstructTies
Coding10
All shared boards10
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured23.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
WeirdML93.6%9.0%GPT-6 Astra Pro
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1260Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1260Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured6.6Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured125.9Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured15.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured27.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured6.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured40.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.5%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured44.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Chess puzzles76.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6 Astra Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1241Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1209Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1261Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured4.0Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured3.6%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
MATH level 5Not measured36.7%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1252Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1253Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured67.6%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured80.1%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1276Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1257Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1283Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1235Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
IFBenchNot measured34.4%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
DTBenchNot measured60.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured14.8%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena TextNot measured1261Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1231Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1232Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1294Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1219Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1215Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1222Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1132Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1140Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1262Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1253Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1234Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1256Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1241Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1236Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1230Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-6 Astra ProLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GPT-6 Astra Pro$0.035Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-6 Astra Pro$0.650Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-6 Astra Pro$2.50Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GPT-6 Astra Pro and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-6 Astra ProMeta Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 4, 2026July 23, 2024
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$10.00$0.56
Output $/Mtok$50.00$0.56
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-6 Astra Pro better than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-6 Astra Pro for a larger context window (1.05M against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-6 Astra Pro or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

GPT-6 Astra Pro costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 and $0.56. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-6 Astra Pro or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

GPT-6 Astra Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-6 Astra Pro vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-6 Astra Pro's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next